lolwut wrote:
Manzano had already run 3:32 and was well established in the track and field scene.
Hopefully, by now you do realize that Makhloufi had a pb set in 2010 of 3:32 just like Manzano set his pb of 3:32 in 2010 (3:32.94 to 3:32.37).
So basically two years ago, when Makhloufi was Centrowitz's current age of 22, his pb was 1.5 seconds faster than Centrowitz's is now.
Of course, there is a big difference between battling for bronze and running away with gold.
Absolutely- I thought the same thing watching that race. That wasn't a field of relatively even matched runners defeated by an improving, but relatively unknown guy employing smart tactics. It was a field tipped apart by a runner who was tangibly stronger than everyone else. Mo Farah was rather prohibitive favorite in the 10k and the world's best distance runner the past two years, but in both the Olympics and WC's, the race was not decided until 30 meters to go. The 1500 was over from 300m out. Sorry, but no.
I don't even have a running website and I still got two of these calls. Not a big deal.
He had to be using something, he recovered from that injury he sustained in the 800 rather quickly!!!
Makhloufi's 800 went from 1:46 low to 1:43 high in a year. Who's the last athlete to do that?
Yuri G wrote:
Makhloufi's 800 went from 1:46 low to 1:43 high in a year. Who's the last athlete to do that?
Alan Webb - 2007
Nope, Webb first ran 1:46 in 2004. Took him three years to get to 1:43.
If Rojo and Letsrun is going to be consistent they should be questioning the Gold and Silver Medalists from the 10,000.
Or maybe wait until they make a mockery of the 5000?
I know Letsrun is not scared of Nike (after Mark Block etc).
Emil C wrote:
Here we have rojo - xenophobic as always.
I mean, how COULD anyone beat an American in a distance race? It's never happened before!
I love how dumb you idiots are and how short your memory is... gullable as all hell.
I remember you same idiots last olympics were crying xenophobia/racism/whatever your pea brains could come up with when we pointed out how OBVIOUS it was Ramzi was doping. Hey, guess what happened?
How is this case ANY different? You watch, it will be overturned.
I agree, but same goes for that cheat Gaitlin in the 100.
Montesquieu wrote:
What's troubling about Makhloufi is the manner in which he demolished the field, both in the semis and the final. The times will show he won by .7, however, from 150 out to 50 out, in comparison to him it looked like everyone else was walking. I've been following the Olympics since 1964. I've never been more certain as to who would win . . . after the semis, that is. Anyone found doping at the Olympics, because that person would deny someone a certain podium experience, the experience of the lifetime, should be banned from the sport for life.
Psychology Man wrote:So an Algerian runs a surprise race to win gold, closing in 52-point, and he's on drugs. An American runs a surprise race to win silver, closing in 52-point, and he's a hero.
I agree the Algerian is a surprise, but he ran 3:34 in 2009.
Bill Haverchuck wrote:
Harry Carey wrote:All of the Makhloufi defenders are claiming that his 1200-1400 speed was nothing remarkable--then why did all of the athletes who went with him, including the 2011 WC silver medalist, suffer so badly?
because he took 41 steps per 100 while everyone else took 44.
Exactly!
JCC1258 wrote:
If Rojo and Letsrun is going to be consistent they should be questioning the Gold and Silver Medalists from the 10,000.
You mean the guys who entered this year with PRs of 26:46 and 26:48? Yeah, they really came out of nowhere.
JCC1258 wrote:
If Rojo and Letsrun is going to be consistent they should be questioning the Gold and Silver Medalists from the 10,000.
Or maybe wait until they make a mockery of the 5000?
I know Letsrun is not scared of Nike (after Mark Block etc).
by your logic, the doping accusers argue that any winner is a doper. just shut up and recognize Makhloufi raised legitimate questions the way he ran each round and what happened with the 800.
Yuri G wrote:
Nope, Webb first ran 1:46 in 2004. Took him three years to get to 1:43.
Alan Webb started 2007 with a 1:46 PR and finished it with a 1:43 PR.
He did not run under 1:46 in 2005 or 2006.
So he went from 1:46 to 1:43 in one year.
Actually, his best time in 2005 was 1:47.13 and he didn't post a time in 2006.
His 1:43 came out of nowhere.
John O'Donnell, thanks for your support...Somecoked up brit: Your reasoning, in my opinion is ass backwards, pardon my french. Get mad at drug users who get caught, don't harp on results before testing is complete. You and all those who are calling so many drug cheats don't have a clue, because all you are doing is speculating. The drug testing is the only method at the present time to catch cheats, so your comment about the pressures of websites being the cause of catching drug cheats is ludicrous. Marion Jones, Regina Jacobs were caught not by LetsRun.com, but by scientists who tested their sample after they got some samples of drugs that were being passed around by Balco. They did not turn to these forums and decided to test certain athletes because some clowns continue to claim so and so is on drugs. It would be awful if Bolt or Rupp or Rudisha were caught in the drug testing. Track and field would suffer similar negative press as cycling. Our sport would suffer irreprable harm.Some athletes will get caught, but to speculate before hand is, as I noted earlier, a real disservice to the sport and to all the athletes who dedicated their lives to trying to perform at their best at these Games. Our sport I hope has a higher standard of testing than any other sport. Good for Track and Field.
some coked up brit wrote:
John O'Donnell wrote:I mostly agree with Cowboy, who objects to the drug discussion here. I have made this point elsewhere but I will make it here again: If every time we see a great result, we are going to immediately talk about possible drug use, there is no enjoyment left in the sport. No sport has done more than our's to root out PEDs. The testing procedures are not perfect but they are all we have. After Bolt's 100 meter win, one contributor wrote that any athlete running under 9.8 must be taking PEDs. Where is the joy in being a fan if that's how you watch?
I think voicing opinions about drugs is important and responsible. Too often the mainstream media steers clear from being honest about its views on drug taking in sport because they fear a law suit or because they want to avoid controversy. Drug taking in sport is an unfortunate reality and to ignore it is almost to condone it. The pressure that websites such as these are able to put on obvious cheaters over the years (Marion Jones, Regina Jacobs, Carmelita Jeter, Rashid Ramzi, Fomenko etc) has arguably helped their ultimate convictions.
To take the same enjoyment from victories which were clearly aided by performance enhancing drugs (e.g. Rashid Ramzi last Olympics, Makhloufi this one) that take from clean victories (Tirunesh Dibaba, Rudisha) is completely irrational and itellectually and emotionally dishonest.
If you truly love track it is impossible not to have your eyes open about drugs taking. If we sit back and are happy when we see a Ramzi win a race then that takes out all enjoyment of the sport for me.
It is obvious that drug takers are one step ahead of the testers, unfortunately. We must not be satisfied simply by passing drugs tests: look at Marion! Look at Lance!
I'd like to thank Coked Up Brit for taking the time to express a cogent argument without resorting to name calling. Others would do well to follow your lead. You caused me to modify my views, if only slightly. I would, for example, be highly suspect of any athlete whose performance improved dramatically after becoming involved with a doctor, coach, or trainer who had a history of using PEDs with athletes he worked with. Still, I hold to my basic point: that despite the imperfections, we need to rely on the testing protocols or we lapse into groundless finger pointing every time there is an outstanding performance, and I politely disagree with your suggestion that my view approaches condoning drug use.
I think we can agree on the following: the sport is indebted to the brothers Johnson for their efforts against PEDs, including the recent expose about the unseemly association between Mr. Bloch and Nike officials. Second, it's a damn outrage when a drug cheater deprives a clean athlete of the moment he deserves:standing on the highest spot on the podium with a gold medal around his neck, listening to his national anthem. Some years ago, 1968 Olympic champ and former WR holder Lee Evans was asked what winning the gold medal meant to him. Evans replied, It means that on one day, you were the best in the world. If you don't know what that means, you don't know what burns in an athlete's soul. No athlet should not enjoy that certainty when he has earned it.
I also thank the gentleman who made the point about the fast and slow twitch muscles when it comes to a finishing kick. I have no expertise in physiology. To me, it seems an athlete would be far more fatigued after running 9,800 meters than 600.
Cowboy bob wrote:
Rojo:
How long are you going to keep this up? It really takes away from the sport, as I have pointed out a few times before. I am not advocating drug use, but be as it may, the testing is what it is. If someone from another country can beat the test, don't you think someone from this country can beat the test?
And what is to be gained from all this drug talk? I just think it makes our sport look like crap.
At this point, everyone has an equal share of either taking the drugs or getting caught, so picking on guys who are black or from other countries is just down right unprofessional.
We get your stand on drugs and it is admirable, but how about letting it rest and lets enjoy the events.
Just a bit of advice from an old guy who loves this sport.
QFE
Kanye North wrote:
JCC1258 wrote:If Rojo and Letsrun is going to be consistent they should be questioning the Gold and Silver Medalists from the 10,000.
You mean the guys who entered this year with PRs of 26:46 and 26:48? Yeah, they really came out of nowhere.
In 2011 Mo joins Salazar as a great athlete, but for some reason as a 28 year old in the sport for years and years he immediately turns into a world beater. That's what I am talking about. No coach is that good, actually if Salazar was the magic ingredient then Mo probably would have had more of an adjustment/transition year in 2011.
Rupp has been with Salazar since he was 15 and at 26 years old he still keeps improving without a hitch or blip.
Taoufik Makhloufi ran 3:34 as a 22 year old, now 3:30 so by your logic there is nothing usual.
I know Kara is in a transition year still, but she is nothing close to what she was under Salazar. It could be now that she is 34 and had a kid but I doubt it that is the only variable. Do you remember that stretch from 2008-2009 where as a 30-31 year old she PR'ed in the 5k at PRE in June, doubled 5k/10k at the Trials in July, doubled 5k/10k at the Olympics, PRing in the 10k, in August. Debuted at NYC Marathon in 2:25 in November. Won the Boston indoor mile in Feb, won the Libson Half marathon, and in April placed 3rd in Boston. Then won the US world championship Trials in June and came back at Worlds and finished 10th. That is a hell of a lot of racing in 14 months.
The fact that Rupp never ever runs subpar is also what I am talking about.
It's been on here before ripping the ODP's methods with the thyroid, micro-dosing et. but I do not think Mahklooufi was any more "obvious" then the some other athletes. So I do not agree with you that "coming out of nowhere" is the only tell all sign.
just because he ran 3:34 in 2009 doesn't mean he didn't cheat in 2009
Ummm... I can name plenty of drug cheats over the years from the USA! What are you trying to say? The US don't do it?/